PeteEU

Well I agree, however that would make the EU a federal union basicly. As it stands now, the EU citizen votes for the EU parlement. The EU citizen also votes for the local country goverment, which intern represents the citizen in the upper power corridors of the EU and chooses the commission. It aint perfect, but saying that the EU lacks democracy is just false. The EU citizen has just about as much power to choose the EU commision as the US citizen has in choosing thier president (note the "just about" bit).

Well the IMF and large corporations have less power over the EU and local goverments within the EU, than they have in other countries outside the EU. But I agree somewhat that the power of the EU somewhat is to "check" the power of the coporations, and the EU is set up in such a way, that you need quite a large "power" as a corporation or organisation, to actually sway the EU on issues.

Look at big pharama. The EU commision brought the case of closed intra markets, and ban on crossborder parallel importing of drugs to the EU court. Saddly they lost, so the rules for the most part are still in place, but here big pharama manged over years in various countries to put in places bans (like the US ban) of importing drugs from other countries. The EU did not like it, so it brought it up and the countries in many cases either eased the rules or fought against the change, but that did not stop the EU commision bringing the case against the member states.. saddly it lost.

Another example is how the EU first allowed Denmark to ban cans (beer and soda) on enviormental reasons as long as Denmark was working towards a recycling system (we recycle bottles and plastic bottles in Denmark alot). Now the reason for the ban was never enviormental, but because the local breweries did not have the capacity to make cans with beer and soda, and the biggest was Carlsberg, who basicly have a near monopoly in Denmark (like 80+% of the market). Now the EU finaly got fed up with Denmark, and pulled the case into the EU court, and Denmark finaly backed down and within a year put a colleciton system for cans in place.

The latest one I heard is the new rules on car emmisions. They are so "harsh" according to the german car manufactures who are crying foul. Funny enough, its the car manufacturs whos cars can not easily meet the requirments that are whining, and thats Porche and BMW and in part VW. The French and Italian car makers have no problems with it, because thier cars already meet those standards or are close, and oh the Japanese also. Will the german car manufactures manage to sway the EU commission on the issue.. I doubt it, but you never know.

The problem is that we only hear in the media of the "bad things" that happen with the EU.. may it be a ban on to to bendy cucecumbers over to other just as silly things. You never hear the good stuff.

__________________
PeteEU

Scucca

A few problems with that. First, WW2 is history. It has no bearing on current protectionism. Second, you're not describing the origins of CAP. We'd have to refer to the continuation of continental European national protectionism (which goes back to the 19th century). Third, the OECD estimated that only a ¼ of the subsidies is retained by farmers (i.e. it essentially becomes corporate welfare). Fourth, you stated ”As for the common agricultural policy. The UK has benifited hugely from it”. Given it is a net drain on British finances and also has increased food prices, that clearly is false.

Thats not true. Britain has suffered in the net contribution stakes because of the dominance of the CAP budget and her relatively small agricultural sector. Indeed, that was a primary reason for the rebate as we'd have been the largest contributor without it (despite not being the richest).

You won't be able to find that figures! There have not been considerable reductions in subsidies. The vast majority of CAP reforms have been “hot air” inspired.

Political choice? I don't think I've voted on CAP yet. The protectionism reduces productivity and therefore inherently harms long term production.

It was in worst shape in the 1980s! You'll struggle to refer to EU membership as a structural break in the UK economy. Benefits are focused on trade liberalisation effects. However, given trade divergence away from the Commonwealth, we'd only require a free trade agreement. Economic integration is only a hindrance.

Try not to use wikipedia. I find it a tad irksome, given I lived through the 70s. See my earlier comments. If you want to suggest otherwise, could you present a more worthwhile source? Something to dispute Giavazzi (1987, The Impact of EEC Membership) in Dornbusch and Layard, 1987, The Performance of the British Economy)? This refers to two twin terrors: a net trade deficit to Europe and significant welfare losses from CAP

__________________

Scucca

Democratic control can only occur with political disintegration. Centralisation of resources will only ensure the impotence of the citizen. Traditionally, we've had corporate welfare via CAP. In the future, you can expect something most horrid such as an ape of the US military industrial complex (via a Common Armaments Policy)

But the truth of the EU is that is has imposed neoliberalism on poor countries. It is simply impossible to stop the destructive power of a behemoth like the EU

donsutherland1

PeteEU

Sorry but the first part is simply not true. The C.A.P has a direct link to WW2 and the aftermath, just as the Steel and Coal agreement pre EEC had. If you look at the originial treaty of Rome, article 39, you clearly see the reasoning behind C.A.P.

Treaty Establishing the European Community - Part Three: Title II

As for your second part, its also non relevant frankly. Protectionism is hardly a European thing only and it goes hardly back to the 19th century but much further back. Britan was known for its protectionism during its "empire days", as was many other countries.

Link? Not that I dont believe you, but would like to read the OCED article. As I have stated again and again, the CAP is not perfect, and I am in principle against it, but I understand why it was put in place and why we still need it. That is the difference it seems between your view and mine.

And you base this on what? How do you know what food prices would have increased if not in the EU? Would the UK economy have recovered and be so strong that it is today, if not being part of the EU? Not to mention you claim "net drain".. what drain? That the UK paid between 1 billion to 4.6 billion more to the EU a year than it recieved and thats a net drain? What about the economic positives that an EU membership gave? The access to markets for British business? The easy access to other EU countries goods and services? The freedom of movement for UK citizens throughout the EU? What about all that and more?

You are dishonest in your critique of the EU (like most UK tabliods) and the UK involvement, because you do not look at the whole picture, but only at the negatives. I admit there are plenty of negatives involving the EU, but they sofar as I see it, far out wiegh the positives in being within the EU.

Well considering CAP is not dominating the budget anymore, then its not a problem anymore is it now?

The UK got the rebate because it was poorer than the rest of the big countries at the time in 1984.

Now that is not true anymore, as the UK is infact Europes second biggest economy after the Germans, and yet you complain that your contributions to the EU is "too much". You do know the Germans have a huge net contribution compared to the UK right? The Germans pump 10 billion more into the EU budget than they recieve, and the French and Italians pump more into the budget than the UK (and yes recieve also alot), yet thier economies are smaller than the UK.

European Union statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes its wikipedia, but its the easiest accessable and the stats are from the EU themselvs.

As for the GDP figures, those are all over the place.

Again by looking at the total pros and cons of EU membership, then I would still not be without it, as we are stronger together, especially against USA and new emerging markets.

Simply not true.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Q&A: Common Agricultural Policy

Thats even an old link, and as of 2008, the CAP is the second biggest post on the EU budget. If you dont believe me goto the EU website and read it.

CAP as part of GDP of the EU has been falling since the mid 80s, and the EU has had a policy of not expanding CAP dispite having more nations in the alliance. So yes I can fully claim there has been a considerable reduction and changes in CAP over the years, simply because CAP has not expanded where as the EU has, and as part of the EU budget, CAP has been declining for year and now is the second largest post.

Oh so you are a member of the British parliment?

And yes I agree that protectionism is bad, but there is nothing we can do about it as long as all other countrie outside the EU use protectionism and subsidies to keep thier industry going. Why should the EU be the one to fall on the sword, so to say and suddenly not be able to produce its own food yet again? Do you want massive unemployment in the food and agriculture sector, because that is what will happen if we go cold turkey so to say, as long as the other nations outside the EU dont follow suit, and I bet they wount.

Gezz, come on. You dont even know your own history it seems. The traditional trade links with the empire declined considerably after 1945, because the Empire crumbled and the newly independant nations put up thier own forms of protectionism and frankly did not like the UK very much at the time. The "traditional" part was because of the UKs imperial past, and that died out pretty fast after WW2, dispite what you think. By the time the UK entered the EEC, the commenwealth had less economically with the UK than the rest of Europe combined.

As for the UKs entrance into the EU, the facts speak for themselvs. The UK is the EUs second biggest economy after Germany, and in 1973 the UK was not even counted as a medicure economic powerhouse in Europe.

You critize wikipedia, which I admit is not the best, but then you float what I expect is anti EU progoganda hit pieces?

Do you dispute the wikipedia facts? Do you dispute that there was massive strikes, an economy that at best grew half the rate of its main european competitiors, industry going bankrupt and so on? Do you deny that the exports and imports from the commenwealth nations shrank considerablly after 1945, so considerably that the exports and imports to Europe surpassed these so called "traditional" trade partners? And all this BEFORE the UK entered the EEC?

Scucca

You won’t be able to justify that remark. That WW2 is history is of course obvious. That current protectionism cannot be understood by reference to a conflict 60 years ago is also quite obvious. It amuses me that it would even be used as a defence when the conservative use of agricultural protectionism pre-dates both world wars

Britain was known for its ‘infant industry’ protectionism. It is that which links it to most other industrialised countries. Protectionism can be an important element in engineering economic development. We don’t have that here. We have protectionism that harms economic development elsewhere, whilst harming the welfare of the domestic populations. Given Europe’s long history of agricultural protectionism, predicting that the CAP would dominate expenditures was rather straight forward.

I’ll have to try and dig it out. Its on my office computer somewhere. In the mean time here’s something from the Guardian to wet the historical whistle: ” Critics say that the CAP has become badly unbalanced, with 70% of its funds going to only 20% of Europe's farms - predominantly the largest - and leaves nearly three-quarters of EU farmers surviving on less than £5,000 a year. Small farmers account for about 40% of EU farms, but receive only 8% of available subsidies from Brussels. According to British government figures, five UK farms receive more than £1m a year in subsidies.”

You’ve been bought by the rhetoric. How would you justify this folly to a poor household, forced to pay higher food prices for this corporate welfare? Perhaps suggest some of those lovely generously salted ready meals have come down in price?

Without protectionism we would have comparative advantage doing its magic for the consumer, plus Europe would have a more dynamic agriculture sector that competes according to productivity enhancement. As a raw data comparison, the Consumer Association in 2002 compared a basket of 15 food items in Britain and New Zealand. In Britain it cost £84.65; in New Zealand it was only £39.48. My personal favourite comment about the waste (and size of corruption of comparative advantage) is the following quote about what a holiday trip for all of Europ's cows: “[CAP] could pay for an upper class ticket to New York on Virgin, and the cows would get a free haircut, manicure and massage plus a choice of 50 different movies thrown in”

Those only require a free trade agreement. They provide no defence of the folly of European integration.

Come now, I can back up everything I say. The Europhile position is usually dominated by a “you’re just a Little Englander” foot stamping. That clearly is irrelevant to me. I’m no nationalist. I’d also support the notion that the costs from the EU actually hit home more for Johnny Foreigner. For example, consider the article by Curtis and its appreciation of the EU’s neoliberal drive: ” It is likely to be the poorest who pay the price for this new drive”

What is it now? 40%+ of total expenditure? That remains massive waste by the gravy train

I already told you why they got the rebate. Despite being one of the poorest, they’d have been the largest net contributor. That just shows how insane the budgeting of the European folly has been.

Given we’re a net contributor because of corporate welfare, it’s my duty to complain.

Can you show reductions in CAP expenditure? Yah or nah? Try The Economist for frank discussion of the conservatism of the EU (e.g. More fudge than breakthrough, 6/28/2003, Vol. 367 Issue 8330, p51)

More misinformation! It is European policy that is the primary reason why WTO reform has not been forthcoming.

The 1980s included a recession that was arguably the worst in our history. Just factual

And don't forget that our net trade balance with the EEC countries worsened

I asked you to provide some evidence that EEC membership represented a structural break to the economy. I can only assume that you're struggling to do that, given you're making comments about the macroeconomy that are independent of membership.

You've referred to wikipedia, I've referred to a published analysis of EEC effects. I know which research method I prefer

PeteEU

The justification is there pure and simple. European countries wanted to safegaurd home production of food. That you cant accept this fact, a fact thats in black and white in the Rome Treaty, is not my problem. Now is that justifcation valid today? Yes and no. European politicans and countries all have the same idea that we need our own food production, however the question is if that food production has to be maintained by such high subsidies. Now that debate is going on and frankly I dont think we need the subsidies. But I do agree that we need our own food production so are not dependant on non EU nations.

Bull****. The protectionism that Europe has today is rooted in protecting home grown industry pure and simple. The same goes for the US and other nations. That in turn hurts the economic development elsewhere, however if we did not have it, then the economic development in our own countries would be seriously under threat.. especially if all production went to countries like China and India, where near slave labour production is taking place and there is a total disregard to the enviorment and people.

Interesting, but still wount change my view. Also the Gaurdian is known for its EU critisim last I looked. And its funny, that you are critical of the "corporate" farms, when that is what exactly is gonna happen if CAP was given up over night. The farms would become HUGE to survive and all the small farmers would disappear very quickly. That is what the free market would do to the European farmer, and thats in the best case.. worst case we would have no farmers left.

If I have been bought by the rhetoric, then so have you. I have admited that on paper, prices have risen due to C.A.P, and I have said there was a justification in C.A.P for doing so. You have totaly disregarded the historical facts behind CAP and why it was put in place.

Thats bull****. You have no idea what would have happened if the UK had not entered the EEC, because the UK economy was in shambles after decades of missmanagment and labour union revolts. Its a theory (wishfull thinking frankly) that the UK would be better off than it is today. And I have admited several times that yes we have higher food prices because of CAP and I have explained the reasoning for it. That you again, cant accept this because you have some kind of blind faith in the free market, a free market that would only be "free" in the UK but where everyone else would be protecting thier home economies is just.. laughable. Considering the UKs history with protectionism, something you have admitted yourself, what on earth makes you believe that the attitude would have changed if the UK had not entered into the EC? And what about all the barriers UK exports to Europe would/could have encountered, or are you still blabling about the "empire" crap. You do know that trade with Europe in 1973 dwarfed trade with the commenwealth.. when looking a the UK right?

Name one free trade agreement that has provided the access to movement of labour and goods, as the EEC and EU has? And dont try to give Norway as an example, because thats a very special case.

Sorry but I have yet to see a Euro skeptic trying to debate on the facts, ALL the facts. THey usually focus narrowly on the negatives and even make **** up that is not true. Maybe I am damaged by the 1992 danish referendum debates which I was involved with, but thats what it is.

43%. Economic growth projects is 45%. And yes its a big number, but it was one of the main principles behind the EEC and EU for peaksake.. Its not something you get rid off over night, especially with nations like the US, Japan, China and others still having huge subsidies in place and refusing to discuss it often.

They got the rebate because they were "poor" but also because the UK does not have as large farming tradition as the rest of Europe and hence not so many farms. Because the payments to the EU are based on the wealth of the nation then the problem arose. It was nothing to do with "budgeting folly", another euro skeptic ploy. Stick to the facts. CAP was the largest part of the EU budget until recently, and as the UK has relatively smaller argiculture industry than all the other EU members, the UK got a rebate, at a time when the UK economy was hurting big time due to the Thatcher policies and a general turndown in the world economy.

Yes but you cant vote now can you. Also half of the EU countries are net contributors to the EU now, and do you hear them complain as much as the brits? No. I personally blame the british tabloids and thier owners. Lies and half truths are a daily thing for them when it comes to the EU, and that has spread to the general populance. Most dictators through history have used the same methods... just ask the jews.

I have.

Bull**** and you know it. There are several reasons that the WTO reform is failing, and I admit that the EU is one of them. The US, China, develping nations and others are also a big part of the problem, with everyone blaming each other. The US refuses to stop giving subsidies to its steel and aviation industries, plus its farming industry. The EU basicly is on the same page, where as the developing countries want full access to the EU and America, while still having protectionism at home. China refuses to fix its currency and so on. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Avoiding the subject. The 1980s had a recession for all of Europe. The economc problems of the 1960s and 1970s is the UK, were all the UKs problem.

AND? Not the EECs fault that the UK started to import stuff, and its industry was a such ****ty one that no one outside the UK would buy thier crap?. Is it the chinese fault that the US has a billion dollar trade imbalance with them?

No, I am struggling to figure out what you actually are on about. You are jumping all over the place, and singling things out without looking at the big picture.

You quoted material that I could not find on the net. Provide links and I can read them.

Not sure continuing this debate is warrented, as we are going around in circles.

Scucca

I'm sure you've been bought by the worm-tonguers. It continues to be factual to remark that the continentals' obsession with agricultural protectionism predates the world wars. The war, plus worries over the Soviet threat, gave the conservatives (led by France and the Dutch) the opportunity to push their agenda. That we are still suffering from that agenda demonstrates the weasel words that the corporate welfare is based on.

Such crassness. Gosh, it was supposed to be us poor ole tabloid-loving Europhobes addicted to limited vocab

You show your ignorance. The UK and the US, typically standard bearers of trade liberalisation, have their protectionism routed in rational protectionism (i.e. to ensure economic development). We can't say the same about agricultural subsidisation.

You do not understand the concept of comparative advantage!

I'm critical of corporate welfare. You're much more sympathetic to it.

Can you present any quality source that refers to this “worst case” scenario? It is supposed to be the Europhobe that treasures scare-mongering after all

I appreciate the diseased nature of CAP and its negative consequences for both home populations and the poverty stricken Johnny Foreigner. I also appreciate that it represents the nature of European integration: conservatism that harms economic welfare. As CAP declines in relative significance, we'll see the gravy train find other means to sneer at basic economic sense. The next subsidisation folly will probably be a Common Armaments Policy. The consequences for our peoples will be significantly negative.

More crassness! My comment was quite accurate. Without the corporate welfare, we would certainly move closer to the result predicted by comparative advantage. That, by definition, would also ensure the convergence of world prices. That horrific distinction between food prices in Britain and New Zealand would, at the very least, narrow substantially. You'd have to deny the relevance of all trade theory to suggest otherwise.

I've presented a reference of an empirical analysis into the effects of EEC membership. You have come out with nothing in return. There is a gain from reductions in protectionism between countries. However, the only preferential trade agreement required to achieve that is a “free trade area”.

A most uncunning remark. I'm quite prepared to refer to market failure, plus the perverse effects generated by rational economic man. However, here we have to refer to the wonders of comparative advantage. We don't even need “free markets”. Indeed, we could have a socialist economy. The problem is that you do not understand the nature of comparative advantage and that has enabled you to be herded by the European folly.

I've referred to how the UK does have a history of protecting its “infant industries”. This also has an impact on our understanding of multilateralism (i.e. protectionism for developing countries is consistent with delivering dynamic comparative advantage and therefore is rational). Agriculture protectionism in the UK would be irrational. We manage to export because of high productivity. Our imports should go unhindered to ensure consumer welfare is maximised.

Again, we only need a free trade area. Economic and political integration is not warranted.

Do you think the movement of labour in the EU has been a success? Labour markets have not integrated and, where movement is significant, it has been to the detriment of the less developed Eastern economies. We only need free trade and ANY preferential trade agreement can achieve that.

Europhiles do not debate, they normally just say “the banana straightening isn't true” whilst copying and pasting from some weasel Euro document

The third poorest nation would have been the biggest contributor. Oops!

Of course not. We have the triple state thesis ongoing. The EU's corporate welfare is the most desired as it is free of the nastiness of electoral competition. Welfare damaging policies go unchecked.

More cobblers! The British population is actually closer to indifference. Eurobarometer 68 has 34% replying that they thought membership was "a good thing", 28% replying "a bad thing", 31% indifferent and 7% "didn't know". They should be complaining more. However, that would need the Labour Party to grow a pair.

Don't fib. You have shown no figures that shows CAP expenditure in Euros has fallen.

The fault lies with the Europeans. The US, despite lower agricultural subsidies, is waiting to play compromise with the EU. The EU, given the French and the conservatives, is refusing to budge. I've also presented a source that shows the EU's neoliberal nature. Rather than sound reform of the WTO, it is forcing through agreements that will harm developing countries.

You're showing your ignorance again! We're not talking about a recession. We're talking about a recession that was arguably the worst in our history. The destructive force of deindustrialisation is still felt today.

You're struggling in the consistent argument stakes. You've been rambling on about how the UK benefited from EEC membership. Where's your evidence? You seem to have decided to go on an Anglophobe rant all of a sudden. Ain't European friendliness grand!

What a dreadful attempt at stalling. Can you provide any evidence that EEC membership represented a structural break to the British economy? I know the Europhile tends to work on blind faith, but I did ask politely.

Its a published book. Find a library.

There is no return from tutting at the Europhile. They always have cheese in reserve to stick in their ears. The only debate available is between the varied types of Europhobe. The petty nationalists, for example, need to be taught that the bullet proof attack is economic in nature. The EU folly ensures welfare losses that should not be tolerated.

TacticalEvilDan

The nature of the EU -- a lose association of very independent nation-states with a host of languages, currencies, economies and cultures all their own -- bears a lot of similarities to the humble beginnings of the United States.

I hope I live to watch it evolve into the kind of government that is running the US today.

That would be hillarious!

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln